Storytelling in Harry Potter (long)

[or.phan_ann]

No: HPFGUIDX 170960

Betsy Hp:
> >Ann:
> >I do think that any villain-driven novel does not have a
> >plot, and I planned my definition especially to exclude them. Ditto
> >for "one thing happening after another" or character development
> >pure and simple.
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Ooh, I'm not understanding your definition then. I figured that, for
> example, the original "Star Wars" trilogy would be considered plot
> driven, in that Luke moves the plot forward by making choices that
> cause the "one thing happening after another" to occur. He's not
> passive. But on the same token, I'd label the Sherlock Holmes
> mysteries as plot driven in that Holmes makes choices that again
> create or cause the plot. Yes, the villain may set things in motion,
> but it's the protaganist that creates the story, I figure. Where
> have I gone astray? <g>

Ann:
I gnash my teeth in frustration at my inarticulacy... I meant that
"one thing happening after another" or character development *by
themselves* weren't enough to make a plot, by my definition. And I'm
afraid I don't remember Sherlock Holmes well enough to argue this
particular point, what you say about him looks good to me. (I took
Pippin's assumption and ran with it, rather than agreeing as such,
because I was too ignorant to do so.)

>Betsy Hp:
>Hmm, but see, I *would* say that "Emma" for example is plot driven,
>in that Emma sets things in motion by doing certain things that start
>the story and keep it going. Yes, Emma is constrained in some ways,
>but then the story sticks to the world she's constrained to, so no
>problem.

Ann:
Regarding constraint, I was saying that Regency women are to Regency
men as children are to adults: if the former mess with the affairs of
the latter, it's difficult for the writer because they're so poorly
qualified for that milieu. Lizzie Bennet can chat up a captain of
horse (as I recall), but not fight at Waterloo. Of course, as long as
women stay in their place <sarcastic g>, all's well.

I'm not sure about Emma, though. Her plots aren't that successful:
Harriet doesn't get Mr Elton (hooray!), Emma's epiphany at the end
isn't really due to her, and characters like Frank Churchill (hiss!),
Mrs Elton (even improperly), and Mr Knightley are more important than
Emma, in my opinion. But it's been a while since I read that one.

> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, I totally agree that we won't be seeing a WW utopia or even a
> hint thereof. But I do suspect that by bringing Hogwarts together
> (which I think Harry will have to do) there will be a suggestion   
 > that this new generation of wizard will reshape the British WW. 

Ann:
Maybe - I said I was a pessimist, didn't I? - but I suspect Hogwarts
will change for the better thanks to DH.

> Betsy Hp:
> In trying to wrap my brain around plot vs. plotlessness I hit
> on "Star Wars" as example of plot and "Breakfast Club" as an example
> of not so much plot. I'd say "The Charioteer" by Mary Renault is an
> example of an excellent non-plot novel. (Generally, Mary Renault
> isn't much about the plot, I think.) "The Secret Garden" is more
> plot. Um, does that work with your definition?

Ann:
Yes to "Star Wars"; yes, judging by Wikipedia to "The Breakfast Club";
and I haven't read that Mary Renault, but "The Praise Singer", a
fictionalised biography of Simonides of Chios, is plotless by my
definition, and I think so for "The Secret Garden". I should have
given examples myself: "Star Wars" has plot; "Gulliver's Travels"
doesn't because it's an excuse for Swift to satirise people; "The
Praise Singer" doesn't either because it doesn't have a narrative
shape, and neither do most biographies, fictional or not.

>Sistermagpie:
> But in general, MWPP are not all that great either by adult        
 > standards. <snip> I don't think the Trio or Draco stand out as
being > wet in this universe--the Marauders benefit from the fact we
don't  > see them as teenagers often. Their advantage is that they
might not > make such bad mistakes in early life that they have mature
lives    > like the past generations.

Ann:
Well, the surviving Marauder-era characters aren't much, although they
haven't exactly had easy lives. Peter's a minion and a rat, Snape's a
minion and a spy, Sirius spends most of his adult life in Azkaban,
Lupin has his furry little problem, and Lily and James, well. Their
lives have all been blighted by Voldemort's terrorism during their
formative years, but the Second War doesn't hit the public until the
end of Harry's fifth year and has so far been much lighter. But
consider the teenage Marauders, three Animagi who regularly go running
around the Forbidden Forest, or Tom Riddle, who also in his fifth year
lets the Basilisk out of the Chamber of Secrets. What have the Trio
done that's so exciting? I don't think it's that they lack talent, but
that they're, well, passive.

> Magpie:
> I'm still confused as to why you want to have this narrow definition
> of plot so that stories with heroes who react to a crisis (all of  
> what Orson Scott Card would call Event stories) can't have plots, so
> that JKR's books don't. <snip> I just wound up wanting to stick to 
> the standard definition of plot which includes stories like Oliver 
> Twist and Jane Austen and mystery novels and Gulliver's Travels.

Ann:
Well, I have a confession to make. I'm an amateur writer, so I'm a
little more anally-retentive about this kind of structural detail than
most people, and I decided you could all benefit from my Great and
Profound Introspection on the differences between plots and
picaresques and satires and romances and so on, which had, I found,
led me to some interesting thoughts about HP. Of course, in my swollen
head you would all have cried "How wise you are, Ann!" but stimulating
discussion is the next best thing. <g> It's interesting you mention
"Gulliver's Travels", though; I think Swift expresses himself in a
fundamentally different way to JKR.

>> BetsyHp:
>> Think of all the things you have to ignore for 
>> GoF to make sense (Fake!Moody not handing Harry a port-key, no one 
>> looking into *who* entered Harry into the contest, etc.), or need 
>> neat-o explanations JKR doesn't provide. And then there's PoA which 
>> includes both enough exposition to choke a horse *and* fun with  
>> time-travel. I love PoA for the introduction of the Marauders
>>(character, again) I'm not a fan of the plot.
> 
> Magpie:
> I think that's why I can't get into the idea that HP doesn't have a
> plot...where would we put all the plot holes?:-)  

Ann:
OK, my theory's definitely sunk now... :) My favorite plot hole in GoF
is why didn't Harry agree to fail the Tournament, and so not affect
anyone else's chances of winning? 

> Magpie:
> I think it's that she doesn't do classic mysteries because they    
> aren't solved by Harry and they really can't be solved by the      
> reader. They're recognition dramas like Jane Austen, where stuff is
> happening and then when Harry gets info it all looks different upon
> re-reading

Ann:
One could call the series mysteries without a detective, even. That's
interesting, and "recognition drama" is a great phrase, btw. (For the
record, Pippin agreed with this too.)

> Pippin:
> Connections of any kind are what give a story its plot, and if we're
> not going to call that plotting, what are we going to call it?     
> "George" is taken. <vbg>

Ann:
We'll call it "Fredding" the book together. <vbg back> Fred would
actually make a useful TBAY character to discuss this kind of thing
with, now I think of it. Anyway, connections give a story its plot,
but not all of them. Characters A and B may have little in common
plotwise, but still work to, say, define the author's idea of Good and
Evil.

> Pippin:
> Alfred Hitchcock used to talk about The Plausibles, that group of
> people who couldn't take any pleasure in a story that didn't follow
> its own internal rules. <snip> My guess is there are things in DH  
> that will cause us to re-evaluate the plots of all the books.

Ann:
I'm pretty Plausible. And I agree with your DH point. The climaxes
and/or denouments so far have all involved explanations of what happened. 

Pippin:
> The mysteries that Hermione solves are "fair" -- when she says
> "Tuh!" or "I've just remembered something" and scurries off to
> the library, that's like Nero Wolfe pushing his lips in and out.
> It's your cue that you have enough information to try to solve
> the puzzle if you wish, using the clues you've been given and
> perhaps some facts from the (Muggle) library, for example
> that "skeeter" is North American slang for an insect.

Ann:
That's it. Never mind translations into US English, I want a
translation into *British* English, with Rita Beetle... but seriously,
what about Eileen Prince? I'd assumed Snape had a mother, rather than
just crawling out from under a rock, but that doesn't explain the
phrase "Half-Blood Prince" by itself. Also, in a world where there's
magic, predicting what'll happen is inherently difficult, unless
there's very strict rules.  

This reminds me of an archived post I found the other day, number
39054 by Lucky_Kari, with the subject "Can one solve GoF?":

>Lucky_Kari:
>First of all, I've never heard of anyone doing it. <snip> 
>However, it seems to me, after much thought, that GoF is very
>solveable, if one had paid attention to all the details.
>
>The detail to latch on to and never let go was Snape's accusation
>that someone was stealing boomslang from the cupboard. Everything
>else could have meant a million different things, but the "boomslang"
>was proof that polyjuice was involved. So, how did we breeze over
>that? Assumed that for some reason Snape was still ranting over the
>CoS incident? No, that clue should have left the reader 100% sure
>that someone in the story was polyjuiced. Add that to Sirius'
>confirmation that Moody was attacked, Moody's breaking into Snape's
>office, and half the puzzle would have been solved.
>
>As for Moody's true identity, I can't believe how stupid I was to
>skip over as a mere unimportant detail the fact that Crouch had a son
>with the exact same name. But, oh well....

Ann:
Has anyone ever solved GoF ahead of time? I assume there's no such
thing as a perfect mystery - I recall more than one man going bankrupt
from trying to sell such a thing - but I don't know of anyone who did. 

Ann, who's noticed that three people have posted while she was writing
this, but needs her beauty sleep...